11/13/2012

An impasse has been created by Obama’s insistence on including tax increases for the wealthy in his alternative, while Republicans in the House, in particular, have demanded achieving the budget goals only through cutting programs. Exit polls after last week’s election showed that 60% of voters favored tax increases for those who earn the most.

More than 60% of Americans believe that a failure to compromise would hurt the U.S. economy and about that number feel their personal finances would take a hit. If the two sides can’t compromise, 90% of Americans will see their taxes go up — with the biggest jumps for top income earners.

Economists said that broad loss of disposable income, combined with cuts to defense and other programs, could throw the economy back into recession.

Wait, what? James Rainey is arguing that we need to keep the Bush tax cuts? James Rainey is recognizing that the Bush tax cuts were broad-based and extended to 90% of Americans? Sure, we can tell the truth now . . . if we’re planning to blame Republicans for their going away — and especially if we’re planning to blame a future recession on Republicans.

But hit the rewind button for one second. What was that about exit polls saying “60% of voters favored tax increases for those who earn the most”? I went searching for a story about exit polls and here’s what I found, from the Wall Street Journal:

One exit poll question on Tuesday asked “Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit?” The answer was no by nearly 2 to 1. A second question asked if tax rates should “increase for all” (13%); “increase only on income over $250,000″ (47%); or “not increase for anyone” (35%). Three quarters of the latter 35% voted for Mitt Romney, which means they are represented more or less by Mr. Boehner, whose House majority also won re-election. On taxes as with so much else, the country is still divided.

Now. I suppose that if you add 47% (the “tax the rich!” crowd)* and 13% (the “tax everybody!” crowd), you can find 60% support for taxing the rich, since the rich are a subset of everyone.

HOWEVER. If the very same poll says that Americans oppose raising taxes to cut the deficit — and oppose it by a 2-1 margin — then an honest pundit might want to tell the folks that.**

So either Mr. Rainey is looking at a different exit poll with scary different results, or he’s not telling you the truth about this exit poll.

Guess which I think is happening here? (There is a typographical hint in the preceding paragraph.)

By the way, since you asked . . . what should we do?

THE PATTERICO PROPOSAL: I think the Republicans should propose $10 trillion in tax hikes over the next ten years, and demand only $5 trillion in spending cuts.

Under my proposal, the tax hike for the first 5 years will be $1 billion per year for a total of $5 billion over 5 years; beginning in the sixth year, tax hikes will be several hundred billion dollars per year, increasing to over a trillion per year by 2020. Unless, of course, Congress changes its mind in the interim, which, hey, you can’t tie future lawmakers’ hands.

Meanwhile, the spending cuts will start with $2 trillion next year, taper off to $1 trillion the following year, and go down from there. This may (read: will) necessitate a massive entitlement overhaul, but sssshhh!

If by now you have recognized this proposal as a parody of the “let’s cut $1.5 trillion over ten years starting with $21 billion next year!” model of “spending cuts,” then you earn a pat on the head and are allowed to graduate to the next blog post.

______________________________________

*Weird how it’s 47%, huh?

**Yes, these numbers don’t add up. If 66% of the people oppose taxes in question #1, and 60% of the people support taxes in question #2, this means a sizable percentage of people both believe we should not raise taxes and that we should raise taxes. This suggests an infirmity in the polling question, or that a sizable percentage of the voters are morons, or both.

I’ve got a better idea. I propose a $5 trillion tax cut. Then, in negotiations, I will show flexibility and compromise by reducing the cut to $1 trillion. In return, I want $1 trillion in spending cuts.

No one wants their taxes raised. When someone comes along later to say they are happy for a tax raise for patriotic reasons, they are lying or stupid or an Obama cultist.

At this point in the morass of debt we suffer, raising taxes will do absolutely nothing unless we raise the taxes on everyone to the point that it exceeds their income, even the ones who have no income.

That’s not a stupid statement. That means we will have to stop providing entitlements to the ones who have no money or anyone else for that matter.

That means no Medicare, no Social Security, no Veteran’s benefits. That means no nothing. Regardless of that, it still would not matter.

We are at the point that no happy, hopey-changey anything can do anything. No austerity nor cutting spending nor sacrificing lambs can do anything.

You want to know why? Because there are never cuts in government. It doesn’t matter whether ReThuglicans or Democrats win elections.

All government spending is based on the previous budget. When everyone gets all excited about cutting this program or the other, what they are really talking about is cutting the already built-in increase in the next budget.

There is no actual cutting of the federal budget, ever. The only proposals to “cut” the budget involve decreasing the amount spent the year before.

I don’t know why people don’t understand this, but they don’t and apparently they don’t care.

Silly me, everyone knows this. I make myself look foolish by stating the obvious. I look forward to everyone saying how stupid I am because I lack a Nobel in economics.

The Patterico Proposal is way better than what I have proposed on earlier posts.

But seriously, you touch on a very key element that Republicans must insist upon if we are to raise taxes on the rich. Democrats always propose the Wimply from Popeye (“I’ll pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”) view of tax increases for budget cuts swap: they propose (as in the 1990 Bush tax increases) that we raise taxes immediately in return for some nebulous “cuts” down the road.

Republicans must resist this siren song during the lame duck session. I think the smart strategy would be for Boehner, et al. to agree to eliminating some tax deductions immediately in return for a commitment from Obama and Democrats to meet certain deficit reduction targets, the goal of which should be to have us return to balanced budgets within 5-6 years. The GOP should insist, however, that tax rates will not be raised until Democrats show that they can cut spending. I think that current estimates are for a $1 trillion deficit in 2013. Republicans can agree to let the highest tax rate go to 39.6% if Democrats agree to target a 2013 deficit no greater than $800 billion, and make the appropriate spending cuts to get there. For 2014 the goal can be somewhere in the $600B range, for 2016 it can go to $400B, for 2015 it hits $200B, and by 2017 we need to be back to a balanced budget. Make the Democrats propose new tax increases every single year if they are unwilling to cut spending. If the economy picks up, it should be a lot easier to reach these targets without having to make deeper cuts.

I’m disappointed because I thought this blog had become so disgusted by the LA Times (as I’ve become), that it (ie, Pat) not only no longer wanted to give a sense of being a regular observer of the newspaper, but it would pretty much avoid discussing what’s in the pages of the Times entirely.

I have so much disdain for the LA Times, that the only thing I want to deal with when it comes to that publication is how much advertising lineage it still has, and no longer has.

I’m disappointed because I thought this blog had become so disgusted by the LA Times (as I’ve become), that it (ie, Pat) not only no longer wanted to give a sense of being a regular observer of the newspaper, but it would pretty much avoid discussing what’s in the pages of the Times entirely.

Leaving the Dog Trainer alone only gives smug Westside and Santa Monica liberals the impression that there is no one who disagrees with what the paper writes. When it finally goes belly-up, history needs to record that there were voices out there that tried to show the Dog Trainer the error if its ways while they still had time to moderate their direction.

Wait, why exactly would anyone use an exit poll to determine how people feel when there was the actual vote cast moments prior that plainly indicate how the voter felt? Seriously.

Which part of the legislature is responsible for raising revenue? That’s right, the House of Representatives. And given two year terms, each member was elected on Nov 6. And the Republicans will have control. Which suggests that, in general, the desire of Americans wrt. to taxes is in line with the Republican Party, no?

How about this. When the dims agree to cut the 1 trillion in extra spending that Odebtor added to the deficit per year for each of the years that he has been president, then, AND ONLY THEN will we talk about raising taxes.

Obama’s idea of a “balanced” plan is 73% tax hikes coupled with BS fictitious savings from drawing down the war (fictitious savings that got spent before) and reducing the rate of growth far out in the future.

Obama will give a press conference within the hour I think. It’s expected to be about the budget, taxes, the economy maybe appointment but I think questions about Benghazi and the Petraeus affair are inevitable, particularly since Senators John McCain (R-Ariz) Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H) held a press conference this morning calling for a select Joint House Senate committee be appointed to look into Benghazi.

McCain said he knows there would be opposition. Administrations always oppose committees, there was opposition to the Watergate hearings and Iran -contra and the creation of the 9/11 commission, which both he and Sen Graham were involved in creating.

I think they also indicated they would oppose the confirmation of Susan Rice as Secretary of State as things stand now at least.

One reporter tried to say that possible leaking of e-mails was more important, and McCain indicated that was a really dumb question. He’s not buying the idea Jill Kelley is the scandal and Benghazi is the squirrel.

David Petreaus will testify either tomorrow or Friday, but in closed session of course. Earlier he had been reported to have said that the deputy director knows everything he knows and some more he learned since he quit last Friday.

Meanwhile it is becoming clear that the (initial?) e-mails were not sent to Kelley but were about Kelley and sent to numerous members of the military. It’s just that Gen Allen sent her a copy of the one he got and she started the investigation. The enemies of Petraeus/moles had probably not expected the investigation would be triggered that way.

All the bad emails have been attributed to Paula Broadwell (although the New York Times was careful to use the words “reputed author) I don’t think that’s true at all.

They probably printed out every file in Jill Kelley’s computer, not just e-mails between her and gen Allen.

Jill Kelley threw numerous catered parties and ran out of money. She also knew Arab diplomats.

The ACLU doesn’t like this whole matter of going into people’s computers – so much private information being ransacked.

BTW, I’d support raising taxes a bunch if and only if they hit nearly everyone and it was made clear that this was needed to pay for Obamacare and other “free stuff.” I wonder how many people would want that 3rd free Obamaphone if they had to pay for it.

One exit poll question on Tuesday asked “Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit?” The answer was no by nearly 2 to 1. A second question asked if tax rates should “increase for all” (13%); “increase only on income over $250,000″ (47%); or “not increase for anyone” (35%)

This suggests an infirmity in the polling question, or that a sizable percentage of the voters are morons, or both.

An alternative is that people were thinking of the second question in terms of “IF taxes were going to be raised, who should they be raised on?” (regardless of how it was phrased exactly) and some just doubled down on their original answer.

narciso on Trump Twitter Accusation Against Comey Creates Non-Existent Quote Out of Thin Air

Patterico on Trump Twitter Accusation Against Comey Creates Non-Existent Quote Out of Thin Air

Colonel Haiku on Trump Twitter Accusation Against Comey Creates Non-Existent Quote Out of Thin Air

narciso on Let’s Not Forget About McCabe’s Conflict Of Interest Based On His Wife

narciso on Let’s Not Forget About McCabe’s Conflict Of Interest Based On His Wife

narciso on Let’s Not Forget About McCabe’s Conflict Of Interest Based On His Wife

AZ Bob on Trump Twitter Accusation Against Comey Creates Non-Existent Quote Out of Thin Air

DRJ on Let’s Not Forget About McCabe’s Conflict Of Interest Based On His Wife

Colonel Haiku on Trump Twitter Accusation Against Comey Creates Non-Existent Quote Out of Thin Air

happyfeet on Trump Twitter Accusation Against Comey Creates Non-Existent Quote Out of Thin Air

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.